in replacing the defective meters after a period of 2 years at the first instance and 1 year at the 2nd instance is fully attributable to the respondent. For the delay caused by the respondents, the consumer shall not be penalized. It is true to state that the procedure laid down under the Act in the statute prescribes for a collection of average consumption charges. But, it does not mean that the respondents at their sweet will replace the meters after 3 years and impose a penalty on the consumer. In demanding that amount, after a period of 4 years, pursuant to the audit objection, the respondents have not given the details of the calculation for arriving at the amount. This Court in its order in W.P.No.11801 of 2000 dated 01.08.2000 had set aside the demand made by them on the face of audit report and permitted the petitioner to proceed with the claims after issuing show cause notice setting out all the basis and reasons as to how the petitioner is liable and after receiving his objection to pass orders. Obviously the petitioner have received this order in the year 2000 itself, however, the 1st respondent has attributed delay on the part of the petitioner and issued a letter of demand on 07.09.2011 after a lapse of 11 years.
